Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gosolar Sf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
GoSolar SF supporters urge steady funding as SFPUC warns of $500M capital shortfall
Summary
Stakeholders from labor, industry and nonprofits told supervisors that GoSolar SF creates jobs and helps low‑income residents; SFPUC staff said enterprise capital needs and rising transmission costs limit its ability to fund GoSolar at prior levels and proposed a $2 million baseline pending revenue proposals.
San Francisco supervisors heard a packed roster of city staff and community speakers on the future of GoSolar SF on Tuesday, with industry, labor and environmental groups urging stable funding and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission outlining large capital pressures that constrain that support.
Supervisor David Chiu opened the hearing by describing GoSolar SF as a successful 10‑year rebate program launched in 2008 that has supported more than 2,500 installations and roughly 8 megawatts of rooftop solar. He said the Board wants to avoid the cycle of annual budget fights that have repeatedly cut the program and then restored funding.
Todd Reedstrom, assistant general manager and CFO at the SFPUC, told the committee that the power enterprise has provided about $19.4 million in GoSolar incentives and appropriated about $24 million overall, producing roughly 2,583 installations. But Reedstrom warned the PUC is facing major capital and regulatory costs — including an engineering estimate that pushed Mountain Tunnel work toward $628 million and higher PG&E transmission charges — producing an enterprise shortfall approaching $500 million over 10 years.
"Our projected shortfall is nearly $500,000,000 over the next 10 years," Reedstrom said, noting the PUC must balance capital needs across water, power and sewer without profit margins.
Barb Hale, assistant general manager for power, described program features that make GoSolar SF unique in the nation: a workforce development component that prioritizes disadvantaged residents, a low‑income bonus, and an ordinance that sets an annual appropriation range of $2 million to $5 million. Hale said the program currently is planned at a $2 million annual level in the SFPUC's 10‑year capital plan absent new revenues or policy changes.
Community speakers — including labor representatives, solar contractors, workforce trainers and nonprofits — urged the Board to find long‑term funding so the program can deliver steady installations and jobs. Diego Hernandez of Laborers Local 261 and John Rizzo of the Sierra Club said funding uncertainty disrupts hiring and training and erodes the local industry. Sunrun, Sungevity, Asian Neighborhood Designs and Luminalt described direct hiring, training pipelines and placements of disadvantaged residents into solar careers.
Speakers pressed for administrative improvements as well: panelists requested better transparency on reservations and payments, a faster payment turnaround (PUC staff said payments are currently processing at about 60 days, with a goal of 45), and authority to accept electronic signatures to speed customer processing (PUC said the City Attorney has advised limits on e‑signatures but staff continue to pursue options).
The committee asked staff to return with concrete proposals for restoring higher funding levels and for operational improvements. Suggestions included exploring community choice aggregation (CleanPowerSF) revenue, property‑assessed clean energy financing, grant opportunities, cap‑and‑trade funding, and a city workforce financing pilot.
Supervisor Chiu asked departments to propose how to reach a full funding level and to document near‑term administrative fixes; the committee continued the item to the call of the chair so staff can develop options.
What happens next: SFPUC will provide budget materials and staff proposals during the budget process; supervisors requested independent review and documentation that clarifies revenue and rate impacts as part of upcoming budget deliberations.
